No you don't. Having two words or phrases refer to different things does not require proof within the same document. If I write a document that refers to people in a school 20 times and refers to people in a church once that doesnt mean that the people in that one instance must of meant people in a school because it was only used that once If "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was the intent, why did the amendment not just say that with no preamble? As you said, they were not idiots. If that is what they intended they just would have left it at that. The preamble has a purpose, and that purpose is to provide the context for the amendment and it's intent. When they said ""no one religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" that clearly shows that they were talking in the context of military service, and that belief is bolstered by the other language "no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person" It is pretty obvious even in my low level of reading comprehension in what context they were meaning. Also you say that those early drafts were saying people had a "right to refuse to bear arms". But if bear arms is not military service and simply means owning a weapon, why would that even need to be in there? That is like saying "you have the right to free speech, but you also have the right to not have free speech" lol. No it was because "bear arms" was a phrase that meant military service, and you had a right to refuse to be forced into to military service if it was against your religion.
That is not true. You dont have to find multiple uses of a phrase in a single document to prove that similar words or phrases have different a meaning in different contexts in that time period. The only militias in existence were the individual state militias, so the purposes of the 2nd amendment was to prevent the federal government to order state militias to disarm. An early text of the amendment was: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
It was pretty clear that the context was in a military context and the only military were state militias. Also that last part is interesting because in other drafts of the amendment it stated "no on religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" Thus offering proof that "bear arms" is also clearly meant in a military sense If you look at it on the whole the amendment was saying that the federal government could not prevent states from raising, training, and using their militias for their own defense.
Homonyms dont mean the same everywhere just because it was used in a difference sense elsewhere. That is like looking at a sentence like "I have thrown up my arms on arguing the right to bear arms to the point my arms are literally sore" And someone else saying "show me one other time arms meant weapons in that sentence, therefore arms meant human arms" That is why context is necessary, and the 2nd amendment provided it in the preamble.
The same way the 2nd amendment doesn't give me the right to have the arms of a bear. They are called homonyms. The same word can have a different meaning in different contexts. Luckily the context for the 2nd amendment was given to us in the preamble.
RIP Hot Rod Cardiac arrest in his sleep. One of my all time favorite entertainers. "Just when you think you have all the answers, I change the question" One of the best lines ever uttered in professional wrestling. "I am here to kick ass and chew bubble gum. And I am all out of bubble gum" One of the funniest and most memorable lines in cinematic history RIP
He was always over. No matter if he wanted to be a face or a heel. One of the best psychologists of all time. His charisma was off the charts. He was the best When he gets to heaven, just when God thinks he has all the answers he will change the question. Kick ass and chew bubble gum Hot Rod. Damn. This actually bums me out more than Dusty.
2nd amendment is pretty clear. The federal government can't disarm the individual state's militias, which are well regulated by state appointed officers so that the states can defend themselves against other states, Indians, and/or the US Army.
I support PP but have never been able to get solid footing on the abortion debate. I used to be strictly pro-life when I was younger. That stance has softened over time. I do think at minimum for instances of rape and incest it should be allowed. But if you believe in that, you just have to legalize abortion dont you? Determining when life begins seems like a fruitless endeavor that will never be fully and appropriately determined. To me it kind of makes that argument mute to the overall consideration. It just isnt something that moves the needle for me. Probably because it isnt my body that is affected or it applies to. But PP is more than just abortions and is essential to women's health in this country. Nothing in these videos change that.